Difficult as it may seem in 2007, Mack transit buses once were very common in NYC. As late as the 1960's, Macks still plied the streets of NY for various local bus lines. Here is a roster of Macks delivered to NYC operators in the years following World War II:
NYC Mack Old Look Transit Buses (1947-1958)
Source: Bus RoSurface Transiters On The Web

Hi Mr. L! I personally have not yet seen a roster for JBI or QTC/QSC, but if I ever find one (or assemble one) I'll be sure to post it here.
It seems that among the PBL's, ST, JBI and Ave. B & E. Bway were major buyers of postwar Macks.
I found it interesting that GBL, who owned a significant number of pre-World War II Macks, did not own any postwar Macks. It would be interesting to contemplate what they might have looked like wearing GBL's paint scheme from the late 1940's.
It's also interesting to note that whileSurface Transit was a big Mack user (as was the NYC Board of Trasnportation), FACCO owned a relatively small fleet of C-50DT's, and NYCO appears to have owned only Yellows/GM's.
I personally recall the Macks operated by JB and the TA. They were visible in "downtown Jamaica" in the early 1960's, and their 4-stroke Thermodyne diesels sounded very different than the Detroits used in other buses.

Hi Mr. L! I personally have not yet seen a roster for JBI or QTC/QSC, but if I ever find one (or assemble one) I'll be sure to post it here.
It seems that among the PBL's, ST, JBI and Ave. B & E. Bway were major buyers of postwar Macks.
I found it interesting that GBL, who owned a significant number of pre-World War II Macks, did not own any postwar Macks. It would be interesting to contemplate what they might have looked like wearing GBL's paint scheme from the late 1940's.
It's also interesting to note that whileSurface Transit was a big Mack user (as was the NYC Board of Trasnportation), FACCO owned a relatively small fleet of C-50DT's, and NYCO appears to have owned only Yellows/GM's.
I personally recall the Macks operated by JB and the TA. They were visible in "downtown Jamaica" in the early 1960's, and their 4-stroke Thermodyne diesels sounded very different than the Detroits used in other buses.

Bob,

Surface Transportation was heavy into Mack long before they merged with FACCO which, as you know, was an offshoot of the old GM/Yellow/Omnibus alliance.
I'm surprised that FACCO bought any Macks at all!

What's even more interesting is that Green Line never owned anything 'Yellow' before the war.

There are two stories as to why, after being such an important Mack customer for so many years, Green Line made an abrupt switch to GM in 1946.

The first is that Mack suffered a paralizing strike immediately after the war and GM took advantage of that fact and made GBL an offer they couldn't refuse which included a heavy duty GMC wrecker as a gift. The records do show such an industry wide labor dispute at the time.

The other reason would involve making accusations based not on facts but hearsay and I am not prepared to do that.

As far as Green Line livery on a postwar Mack; that's easy, Jamaica Buses used Green Line's design in their red and cream motif - just visualize it in apple green and cream instead!

Mack bus Diesels sounded absolutely nothing like GM's two stroke jobs. They 'hummed' more than they roared!

Another interesting point about the postwar Macks with automatic transmission; for some reason, it seemed as though, even at a stop, the engines would idle at very high RPM (I guess a Mack specialist could explain that!).

BTW; the only relationship that I know of between Mack and GBL after the war was GBL's trial of a C-50 demonstrator about 1951.

Interesting info, Mr. L; thanks!
I think you're right on the money about Mack's postwar labor problems.
GM arguably had their best years from 1945-1965 or so. They had a good product and solid engineering, plus excellent marketing skills; that is a combination that is tough to beat.
A history of Mack buses published in Motor Coach Age in 1974 had suggested that Macks were well built, but somewhat heavy as compared to contemporary GM transit buses. Mack even referred to its bus design as having a "Fortress Frame"; they really believed in their corporate slogan, "Built Like A Mack Truck." The straight-6 Detroit probably was an ideal engine for the job, and the GM-built hydraulic transmission also probably was bulletproof. The article also offered the opinion that Mack's Airglide air suspension design used a lot of air as compared with GM's air suspensions used after 1953.
To their credit, Mack stayed in the transit bus business until 1960, long after ACF, White, Ford, Beaver, and others had vacated the field. One of the reasons sometimes cited for Mack's exit was the fact that the Interstate Highway System was being built in the late 1950's, and that the modern trucking industry (including heavy trucks needed to build the fledgling I-states) was beginning to boom, while the large-scale availability of affordable automobiles in the same era was hurting mass transit operators. Mack trucks were simply more profitable and attractive a business, and management understandably decided to go where the money was.

Interesting info, Mr. L; thanks!
I think you're right on the money about Mack's postwar labor problems.
GM arguably had their best years from 1945-1965 or so. They had a good product and solid engineering, plus excellent marketing skills; that is a combination that is tough to beat.
A history of Mack buses published in Motor Coach Age in 1974 had suggested that Macks were well built, but somewhat heavy as compared to contemporary GM transit buses. Mack even referred to its bus design as having a "Fortress Frame"; they really believed in their corporate slogan, "Built Like A Mack Truck." The straight-6 Detroit probably was an ideal engine for the job, and the GM-built hydraulic transmission also probably was bulletproof. The article also offered the opinion that Mack's Airglide air suspension design used a lot of air as compared with GM's air suspensions used after 1953.
To their credit, Mack stayed in the transit bus business until 1960, long after ACF, White, Ford, Beaver, and others had vacated the field. One of the reasons sometimes cited for Mack's exit was the fact that the Interstate Highway System was being built in the late 1950's, and that the modern trucking industry (including heavy trucks needed to build the fledgling I-states) was beginning to boom, while the large-scale availability of affordable automobiles in the same era was hurting mass transit operators. Mack trucks were simply more profitable and attractive a business, and management understandably decided to go where the money was.

Bob,

On the '74' Motor Coach Age issue devoted soley to Mack, I've had one thanks to the Mack Museum for a number of years and derive much of my information from it.

Of course!, I would find an error in their records which I have been meaning to contact Don Schumaker (the Museum Curator) about but just haven't had the time.

On page 32 (Largest Prewar - 1934 to 1943 Rear Engine Trackless Mack Customers), you will notice that the record shows a total of 100 model 'CT''s delivered to Green Line.

I know with certainty that there were only seventy such buses delivered; #601 to 635 in 1937 and # 701 to 735 in 1938 - I believe they have added the thirty buses purchased in 1937 (#101 to 130) by Manhattan and Queens Bus Corporation that eventually (1943) became a subsidiary of GBL.

Now, you might say that Green Line may have managed M & Q early on, and I would agree except for the sun visors on all GBL Macks that were absent on the M & Q's (as pointed out by Alan Bromberger in the history of the company).

This is unfortunate because now Mr. Schumaker will have to collect every March-April 1974 Motor Coach Age issue and make the necessary correction! (only kidding).

Mack buses were built like Mack trucks, and that was a chief complaint at many properties. Most drivers at Green Line complained about the hard ride and the fact that the constant road vibration translated to discomfort for both passengers and the drivers themselves (GM did really know what they were doing with their chassisless design!).

You do make an excellent point about the need for heavy trucks to build the Interstate Highway system and the fact that Mack ceased production of buses to concentrate in that new area.

However, I would still say that the phenomenal marketing job that GM was doing at the time had to have had some impact on Mack's decision!

Ironically though, their last two orders to both NYCTS and San Francisco Muni were the largest in their history - so they sure went out with a bang!

Good question! I don't own a copy of the MCA issue (1972 or 1973?) that covered MABSTOA. Guy Martin's chapter on MABSTOA doesn't get into numbering details, but he mentions, "With the arrival of the new TDH-5303s in 1963, MABSTOA receved an additional 279 TDH-4510s from the TA's Brooklyn operation. These, combined with the new buses, allowed the retirement of whatever Mack C-45s and C-47s were left, plus close to 400 GM TD-4506s and TD-4507s."

From what I recall, it was out of necessity; the only buses GM were offering at that point were 102-inch wide, thus falling afoul of New York State regulations on bus widths in place then. GM then had to offer, and fast, a 96-inch-wide updated model (TDH-5104, I.I.N.M.) - too late for FACCo at the time.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum